Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VaJaMe (talk | contribs) at 09:28, 23 March 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


March 17

04:35:08, 17 March 2021 review of submission by EditorofWorldAffairs

I am requesting assistance because I am still being told that my article is blatant advertising but I'm not advertising anything! I have followed WP five pillars and I also went off of similar Wikipedia articles already accepted and published such as World Affairs Council of Dallas/Ft-Worth, World Affairs Council of America, World Affairs Council of Arizona. EditorofWorldAffairs (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EditorofWorldAffairs Note that advertising does not just mean trying to sell something or soliciting customers/attention; on Wikipedia, merely telling about something is considered promotional. Wikipedia is not interested in what any organization wants to say about itself, only in what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Some of the articles you mention are themselves problematic- I doubt each individual chapter of your organization merits its own Wikipedia article. Please see other stuff exists; each draft is judged on its own merits.
You must review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies and make the required formal declaration. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:22:24, 17 March 2021 review of submission by DrX Tavarak Choudhary


DrX Tavarak Choudhary (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a social media platform. --Kinu t/c 05:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:38:03, 17 March 2021 review of submission by DigitalArtist8


I am requesting assistance because I can't see the button "Submit for review". Please review the article Draft:Parblo Thank you DigitalArtist8 (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalArtist8 Simply click the blue "resubmit" button at the top of your draft, in the last decline notice. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:28:19, 17 March 2021 review of submission by Sørhaug

I submitted this article after adding more references, but apparently it is still not supported by reliable sources. The references in the article are from the Norwegian Football Federation, VG, Nettavisen and Aftenposten. I don't see how they are not reliable. VG, Nettavisen and Aftenposten are three of the biggest newspapers in Norway. Each of the four matches are also supported by match reports from the Norwegian Football Federation. Which of these references are not reliable? Sørhaug (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2020 Eliteserien Promotion/Relegation play-offs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) / courtesy ping for @Kashmorwiki: CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sørhaug, I used a translator and the sources are indeed giving enough significant coverage to the subject. But I still have some concerns with its relibality as it feels more like a fan blog. Thats why I declined it. Dont worry I will discuss your concerns with a more experienced reviewer and will definetly find a solution. Please wait and dont resubmit now . I will update you you soon Kichu🐘 Need any help? 13:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:43:41, 17 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Green416


I have revised this article numerous times and included recognized reliable sources. How exactly can I style and fix this article to be adjusted for Wikipedia, I wish someone would show me the proper formatting - ON Nature magazine is a long-standing magazine with an extensive valuable and informative journalistic history and show be included as a Wikipedia topic.

Green416 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at length on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:39, 17 March 2021 review of submission by Mealplan12

Mealplan Shop is canadian registered federal corporation. We are in our initial stage of inception with aim to enable food businesses (small,medium) to leverage online market and pivote their already established customer base towards subscription based meal plans. posting this page on wiki, would enable and educate other to start subscription based meal plan business and make living. Mealplan12 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mealplan12 What you describe is a promotional purpose and not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no interest in helping your company grow its customer base. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:50:23, 17 March 2021 review of submission by Content4All


Content4All (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a follow-up question from the answer provided to me in January as follows; Hi Content4All. There is nothing you can change about the draft that will result in its approval and publication, because the topic is not notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC) That is, unless more coverage of the topic is found. Zoozaz1 talk 03:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC) No such coverage exists, but of course the usual caveats apply. Walton's Five and Dime wasn't notable in 1945. Twenty-five years and several names later it became notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

My question now, if Dutch Country General Store is not notable, and as you say it could be after many years, I do know they are becoming more notable so ther are additional sources I might be able to add that I did not have back in October when I originally submitted this article, so can I go ahead and update the article with additions and resubmit?

Thank you! Content4All (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Content4All[reply]

Content4All, since you do not link to the draft I have not checked if it has been rejected or declined.
If rejected then you will need to make a fresh draft with the extra information that you have. Top avoid giving yourself work for work's sake, check the references: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain . Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
We don't want more references we require excellent references.
If declined then you may work in it further and submit it again. The comment about the references still applies
Do, please, link to drafts you want answers on Fiddle Faddle 08:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the draft name to the Lafc template above for them. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:51, 17 March 2021 review of submission by Parisnaka


hello i was trying to publish a article about an uprising entrepreneur and it was declined , why?

Parisnaka (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parisnaka, it would be helpful if you would mention the name of your article/draft. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parisnaka, the reason it has been pushed back to you for further work is in the big pink box on the draft. Please confirm that you have read this and then ask any specific questions you may have. Fiddle Faddle 08:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added link above to the user draft I assume they were asking about. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:48:44, 17 March 2021 review of draft by Pkraiker


I'm trying to understand how to provide satisfactory references for a new and developing application.

Pkraiker (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added to the list of 2nd party reference, now 15 in total. I feel like a magazine will have to write an article about this before anyone will approve it. When I compare this to other entries listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Remote_Music_Performance_Software I honestly feel this is at least as complete as many of the entries. I'll use Lola (software) as an example.

Pkraiker If this application is "new and developing" it almost certainly does not merit an article at this time. The fact that you are adding lots of references might sound good, but those references only cite specific points as to what the app does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how that topic meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Press releases, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activity, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Yes, magazines or other sources will need to choose on their own to write significantly about the app in order for it to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

02:03:18, 18 March 2021 review of draft by Wayne.oquin123


Can you help me identify which kind of sources are lacking or which ones are not independent enough from the primary source? Here is the url attached: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wayne_Oquin_(composer) Thank you and I hope to hear back soon!

Wayne.oquin123 (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne.oquin123 Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy. It's not forbidden, but it is strongly discouraged in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. No information in the article should be cited to your website or official biographies of you from those orchestras you are associated with. Most of the other sources simply cite what you do- Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable composer. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello 331dot,

Thank you so much for being in touch! You have clarified a lot with your response and was very helpful. I have since been going through and finding better sources and removing Wayne Oquin's personal website and other biased sources. I also wanted to clarify that I am not Wayne Oquin. I am just a fan and being new to Wikipedia I made a rookie mistake of putting that name in the username. I have since switched it to the more appropriate and private name composer.bio123. Looking forward to resubmitting, and thank you again for all your help!Composer.bio123 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:42:59, 18 March 2021 review of submission by Jagadeesh.sankaran

The submission has been declined on 17 March 2021 second time due to the same reason as on the first rejection. That is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published. But while on the second submission, I have added more relevant and secondary sources about the person available on the internet. Please help me to find the possible causes of this rejection and suggest me how to avoid this failure on subsequent submissions. Jagadeesh.sankaran (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

agadeesh.sankaran As the reviewer notes, you haven't yet established that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. No amount of editing can confer notability on someone, you must demonstrate it. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:42:45, 18 March 2021 review of submission by IndrajeetISingh


IndrajeetISingh (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:I You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What can i do for acceptable to this draft?

IndrajeetISingh (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not see your initial posting above. Please only make one posting at a time; if you have additional comment, please edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:14, 18 March 2021 review of submission by 124.43.39.245


124.43.39.245 (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:41:20, 18 March 2021 review of submission by JCarr8Wiki


JCarr8Wiki (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Copyright problem: Clinical social work

I posted the following at: Wikipedia: Copyright problems/2021 March 18

I am a bit confused as I have been writing for years and have never had such a concern. All material was properly cited and referenced per academic standards. Additionally, The material is factual, and while paraphrased, cannot be altered from it reality. Nevertheless, in an attempt to resolve the issue, I have edited the article attempting to remove and/or edit any material that may have been of concern. Thanks so much and I look forward to your feedback.JCarr8Wiki (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I hope that I did the edit correctly as I hope this is resolved soon. Thanks so much! JCarr8Wiki (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a rewrite for Clinical social work at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clinical_social_work/Temp. This is an effort to resolved the suggested Copyvio issue. I am a little lost in trying to resolve this issue and any guidance would be appreciated.JCarr8Wiki (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JCarr8Wiki, This forum is not one to use for existing articles. We only deal with drafts. You should direct your enquiry to the editor Justlettersandnumbers who flagged the issue, please. There are also excellent copyright specialists here such as Diannaa who may be able to offer advice Fiddle Faddle 17:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much; will do. JCarr8Wiki (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:39, 18 March 2021 review of submission by VovATooL

For the last half a year, I've edited text and tried to add as many reliable sources as possible (including official Huawei, Intel and news websites). I'll be grateful for any advice and help to finish this article. VovATooL (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VovATooL, in half a year one source added - your draft has been finally rejected and will not be considered any further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford, there are many small changes I've posted in half a year, including text changes and at least 3-4 reliable sources. That's why I've asked for help in the first place. Is it possible to reconsider rejection? This is my first complete article on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VovATooL (talk • contribs) 09:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:VovATooL#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:51:48, 18 March 2021 review of submission by Mickyskidy


Mickyskidy (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mickyskidy, You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:18, 18 March 2021 review of submission by SBLiveAlex

I understand that my article was deemed to "read more like an advertisement" than an encyclopedia post, but all of the statements therein were factual and verifiable via the citations I included. I also understand that, as a disclosed employee of the company, I'm not encouraged to write about the company. I submitted the article for review and instantly got a rejection, and I'm wondering if it was even read, or if it was automatically rejected. Either way, I'd like to know what parts sounded like an advertisement so I can remove them from the draft. I did my best to write in neutral language, and I do believe our company is notable in the industry, at least as notable as our competitors who have a published page on Wikipedia. Thanks for your help! SBLiveAlex (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SBLiveAlex You misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article is not for merely telling about a company and what it does. It should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Your draft is sourced to nothing but announcements of routine business activities that are little more than press releases, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dotIf that's the case, then why does the article for MaxPreps exist? It seems to me like that article, for one of our competitors, uses the same announcements of routine business activities that are little more than press releases. I tried to use them as a template, so that's why I ask. SBLiveAlex (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SBLiveAlex Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too- and that other articles use inappropriate sources does not mean that you can in your draft. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years. We can only address what we know about. In this case, the MaxPreps article itself seems problematic. It's only sourced to its own website and two other sources with minor coverage- which is actually worse than what you wrote, so I've marked that article as having issues, if those issues are not resolved, it may be proposed for deletion. If you would like(though I'm guessing not) you are welcome to help us identify other inappropriate articles so they can be addressed, we could use the help.
Your competitors meriting articles also does not automatically mean your company does too. It depends on the sources. Not every company in a field is entitled to an article. To be successful in writing an article about your company, you need to set aside everything you know about it, everything on its website, and everything that is a routine announcement, and only write based on the content of independent sources with significant coverage that have chosen on their own to write in depth about your company. Ford Motor Company does not merit an article because they produce motor vehicles that get reviews, or close a factory, they merit an article because independent people have extensively written about the history of Ford and it effects on things like assembly lines, manufacturing, and labor relations. You may wish to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:27, 18 March 2021 review of submission by Javier Alejandro Herrera Carvajal


Hello there. I was making this draft about a home remodeling and real state company. I was following the Houzz company post as an example to guide me. There I saw some links with relation between the references and the company, but I think it is coherent. In history parts, there must be than connection. Now I get the point, the references in some parts are connected, they are not non-independent, but I need help to recognize wich one of the references I used are worthy for this work. And If can give advises for my redaction, if maybe lees is better for improve the post and not sound like an advertisement. Thanks in advance, I new and I really want feedback to write a better post.

Javier Alejandro Herrera Carvajal (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:12:58, 18 March 2021 review of submission by A loose necktie

It looks like this article's subject was identified during review as not being sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. However, as I explained on the talk page of the editor who rejected this article, there appears to be an article for this subject in the Spanish Wikipedia, and that article has a dozen sources, suggesting to me that the subject is quite likely notable. That was 10 days ago and I have had no response. I realize this article is without references, and is badly written overall, but these do not mean it is not a notable subject. A loose necktie (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A loose necktie, wellcome to AfC help desk. I had a look at your draft and found it is unreferenced. Unreferenced drafts are likely to get declined. But let me inform you, your draft had been rejected, means it will not be considered further. Thank you! Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 08:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A loose necktie, and if you think there were dozens of sources about the article, why didn't you referenced them? Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 08:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kammill Note that this is not an article that I wrote or have any vested interest in. I am just an editor who is noting that an apparently notable subject has been declined for an article on the English Wikipedia based on its [supposed lack of] "notability". I have not gone and added the references, but I thought this wasn't supposed to matter, so long as those references actually exist, right? (It isn't my article, it is Wikipedia's article! If it is notable, then it is notable, isn't it?? Even if badly written, even if lacking good sources, even if written by a person whose first language is not English)  :-) A loose necktie (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A loose necktie, The draft process is intended to increase the likelihood that a new article will survive an immediate deletion process. An unreferenced draft is likely to fail to survive. The onus is upon you to assert and verify notability. Fiddle Faddle 15:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudes, from WP:GNG: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article... (my emphasis) Why do we have guidelines like this if we routinely ignore them? Doesn't the onus of rejection or of nominating an article for deletion depend on the page reviewer/ deletion nominator to know what he / she is doing, rather than on the page creator to know that he/ she is doing it "in the right format"? (and wouldn't a deletion nomination also be just as much a mistake, if the subject is notable, regardless of the extant sourcing?). That seems like asking naivite to be more experienced, and knowledgeable and competent than old age, which is backwards, which is why the guideline was written that way it was, to prevent just that. Wasn't it? The point is, Wikipedia suffers if it denies the publication of articles on notable subjects just because they don't have the sources yet, no matter who writes them. Who are we punishing here by denying this one? The author? His bad grammar? His lack of experience? Or are we punishing ourselves? In which case it becomes not "rejection" but spite, which cannot be the outcome we are headed towards, are we? And moreover, why do I have to belabor this point with no support from any other editor? Am I truly in the wrong here? A loose necktie (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A loose necktie, well, we can test it. Despite it's having been rejected, I can accept it and then we can see what happens to it. No harm will come to any editor involved. The article may well be improved such that it will survive an immediate deletion process. It may well be deleted immediately. I will take no part in any deletion process.
But please don't call me dude. Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry, Sir!) Yes, I think it deserves a shot at a surviving a deletion discussion. Also, I have no idea how to begin this from its current state. Do you? I will notify the original author. A loose necktie (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A loose necktie, As I offered and said also in your talk page, I have accepted it. I will watch it with interest, but take no further part in its life. By contrast I see it as important, should it be sent for a deletion process, for you to do whatever you believe necessary withe the rules to seek to protect it
Thank you for de-duding me Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And thus do I now consider myself appointed. Into the breach! Thank you again! A loose necktie (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 19

00:25:53, 19 March 2021 review of draft by Abigail Christine


Hello, I had multiple people question the quality of the Wikipedia entry I am trying to create for Endeavor Business Media. One user said my article was a "well disguised advert bh a self identified paid editor" when my intent was to write a factual entry about the company I work for, Endeavor Business Media. I disclosed that I worked for the company. I cited verifiable sources, yet was accused of using "regurgitated press release" or "PR material" in the entry. If you look at the draft I created, all citations lead to reputable media outlets. I am having a hard time understanding what qualifies as a quality Wikipedia entry. M

Abigail Christine (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Christine (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Christine Like many in your position, you have a misunderstanding as to what a Wikipedia article is supposed to do. It is not for merely telling about a company and what it does. That's considered promotional here; you don't have to be actively soliciting customers or selling something. A Wikipedia article about a company should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases and announcements of routine business activities like changes in staff or sales information or the acquisition of a competitor do not establish notability. Your draft is almost exclusively sourced to such sources. That's not what Wikipedia is looking for. Wikipedia is looking for information from sources that goes beyond routine activities and provides a more overarching look at the subject(in this case, a company). Ford Motor Company does not merit an article because they produce motor vehicles that get reviews, or close a factory, they merit an article because independent people have extensively written about the history of Ford and it effects on things like assembly lines, manufacturing, and labor relations. If independent reliable sources have written about your company's impact on its industry, community, or something, that would be a good start for an article. But just telling us what it does is not. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abigail Christine I have had a pretty thorough look over your references. For an editor with only 37 edits to her edit history, you are remarkably adept. That aside, I looked into the related company, PR News, and its various awards. It looks like PR News is a bit of an awards mill, charging "winners" several hundred dollars to receive their awards and additional fees to attend the annual awards banquets (for which there-- is it hundreds?-- of categories). I even attempted to generate a nomination for an entry for the "Top Woman" award but was unable to do so because of a website error of some kind. As near as I can tell, Endeavor is a segment of Access Intelligence LLC., which also owns PR News and about six other brands. There is an office in the Trump Building in NYC on the 50th floor shared with two or three other firms. I can find no evidence that someone with your name works for them in any capacity, which may mean you "made up" your name to conceal your identity (which, why would you do that, given 37 edits and your paid editing disclosure?). A Google Books search only turned up books in which Endeavor was involved in contracting for, not any in which it was the subject of discussion. The publications in Folio: are the most viable evidence of notability, but Folio: seems to be just another branch of Intelligence, which means it's publications lack independence. Given the additional ties between Access and Endeavor, it all looks like a lot of self-derived hot air trying to inflate itself.
Look, I am sure your employer is paying you well for your attempt to generate a Wikipedia article about them, and you know their lingo ("strategies", "insights", "revenue", "ignite connection", "media relations", "flagship", "webinars", etc/ the list is long). They may even be notable! But given the intrigue of who you are and who they are, it doesn't look like Wikipedia is going to be willing to host an article on them. Maybe once the New York Times or the Washington Post has taken an interest, Wikipedia will be willing to follow suit. In the mean time, good luck with your 38th edit. A loose necktie (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I think you are talking about a different company. May I ask why you think I am affiliated with PR News? I have no idea what PR News is or what their "various awards" are, and my company is not part of Access Intelligence LLC. We are not located in the Trump Building on the 50th floor. My company is Endeavor Business Media. Here's our website: https://www.endeavorbusinessmedia.com/

When I started my Wikipedia account, I was actually prompted to NOT use my real name ... I'm not sure why you're questioning my identity? I've disclosed myself as an employee of Endeavor Business Media.

Abigail Christine (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:54:41, 19 March 2021 review of draft by Delbarital


Hi, The company is well established, has more than 600 employees, its valuation is above 4 billion dollars, its revenue is reported to be over $400 million USD. It didn't get significant press coverage so far besides the references I added to the article (as far as I could find). I checked the status of this article again after I read that Amazon started to collaborate with Next Insurance to offer Insurance, and saw that the article submission was declined. What can I do to help it published?

Delbarital (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delbarital As noted by the reviewer, "All references seem like trivial coverage, namely: standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, see WP:CORPDEPTH". Wikipedia articles are not for merely telling about the subject and what it does. They must do more- a Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your draft just tells what the company has done, and is sourced to nothing but press release-type articles or announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish notability. Please review the links I've provided here, as well as Your First Article.
If you are associated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:43:48, 19 March 2021 review of submission by Ssavannah.walk

Hello, this is the second attempt to publish a page about Sqooasha. It is not at all my intent to advertise, but rather to inform. For that reason I would like to revise the page in order to comply with Wikipedia policy. However, I'm not sure which portion of the page violated the policy, so I would like to request some specific feedback. Hopefully someone can tell me which part of the page is promotional in nature.

Thank you.

Ssavannah.walk (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ssavannah.walk There is no difference between "advertising" and "informing" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. Your draft just tells about the platform and what it does- Wikipedia articles must do more. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:59:00, 19 March 2021 review of draft by Christopher michell


Christopher michell (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like more information about what changes reviewers would like to see. I have added in-line citations and references as requested and believe that the subject (not myself!) is sufficiently well known and experienced in his field to qualify for an entry. A book he has written already has a long Wikipedia page.

I am also intrigued about why a draft text I submitted has appeared without changes in something called Wikitia which I know nothing about! Can you help with this?

Thanks

Christopher michell Wikitia is a site similar to Wikipedia, but who has a group of verified editors(unlike Wikipedia where anyone can edit) and it appears that one such editor used your draft as the basis for an article.(it looks like they have made some superficial changes to it) Since they gave attribution, that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:33:44, 19 March 2021 review of submission by CNDS 2011

I am wondering why the publishing of this page was declined. The Centre exists and it is a very important research centre in Sweden and brings together researchers from around the world. It is my first time trying to create a Wikipedia page so I would like some guidance on how to make it get publish. I am one of the Centre's employees.

Kind regards CNDS 2011 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CNDS 2011: I think the problem is that all the sources provided in the draft are primary sources and not independent. Secondary sources are needed to be added to satisfy WP:NORG.
Also, your username is likely to violate WP:NOSHARING. You should request a username change. See Wikipedia:Changing username. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CNDS 2011, first of all you did not provide any sources for your article at all - please have a look at WP:YFA, of help might also Help:Referencing for beginners, further you should make yourself comfortable with WP:COI. Your username also does violate our policies. Better request a username change asap. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:58:37, 19 March 2021 review of draft by Or-Kitt


Sorry for the repeat ask, I'm still trying to fix up this article on the artist Zinnia Naqvi. I'm having difficulty with the "notability" of this artist. She's an award-winning artist and pretty notable in Canada — photography award from the National Gallery of Canada, exhibits nationally and internationally, and I've included citations on her work in Canadian Art magazine and an interview on her work on Global News (one of our national news networks). I'm not using any sources that I think are questionable (eg. her artist's website), and I really just don't know what to add at this point! Any suggestions are appreciated.

Or-Kitt (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or-Kitt Your draft just tells about the person and their work. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this artist, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist. The last reviewer must think that is at least possible, because they only declined your draft instead of rejecting it. Instead of just describing their work and what they do, describe what the sources say about her and her work beyond the mere fact that it occurred. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

Request on 10:13:55, 20 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Baby Najnin


Baby Najnin (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Nangin Wikipedia is not for people to tell the world about themselves. See the autobiography policy as well as WP:PROMO. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:54:31, 20 March 2021 review of submission by TropicalMundo

I created a page last year. It was my first time creating a page and there were many mistakes. I took the time to read comments, articles, and make corrections. I made all the suggested corrections and resubmitted my draft for review at the beginning of this year. Everything in my page is cited or referenced. It took 1-3 days for my previous submissions to be rejected, but now that I have made all the suggested corrections, it has taken over 2 months for anything to happen. Please see my article here. My body of work is sound. Everything is cited and referenced. The subject is noteworthy. There is no clear reason why my draft is being rejected at this point. TropicalMundo (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TropicalMundo Your draft has not been rejected, it is still pending review. As noted in the submission notice, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 5,287 pending submissions waiting for review." There are thousands of drafts awaiting review and relatively few volunteer editors(working on their own time) to conduct reviews. You will need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Lafc|username=TropicalMundo|ts=01:37:23, 21 March 2021|link=

331dot Thank you, but at the time of the submission, there were 4000 drafts awaiting review. Now there are over 5000. This seems like im in a line with no position or a position that continues to get further and further behind. I was never given a spot in this que, and I am only left to assume. Originally the wait was 3 months. Im approaching the 3rd month, so I logged in to view my draft, and now it says 4 months. The duration has never reduced. I am very patient and will continue to wait happily. However, I am curious if this task will ever be accomplished because my time only increases and has never decreased since submission. I also wonder if this is normal? I was rejected quickly, so I know someone is viewing my work. This is not a complaint about the rejection. I am happy it was rejected, because my previous submission was ugly and needed alot of work. Now I can say it is an informative article with strong references. So what would be the delay in this case? Have I upset someone for asking too many questions? Is there a problem with my writing that I can change? In either case, Im willing to apologize to anyone I upset and adjust my article in anyway necessary. I only ask that my work be judged for itself. I enjoy writing and am eager to participate in the Wiki community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TropicalMundo (talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TropicalMundo. The number of submissions awaiting review has risen because more are being submitted than are being reviewed. These imbalances have always worked themselves out in the past and likely will do so again. It's more of a pool than a queue. Reviewers aren't forced to review in any particular order. Some review easy fails, which may explain why your first draft was declined within a few days. Others work on the oldest drafts, so as the time you've been waiting approaches that of the oldest draft in the pool, it becomes almost certain that it will be reviewed soon. The longest backlog in recent memory was approaching six months.
You write that you're eager to participate in the wiki community, but your participation so far has been limited to editing this draft. There are a million other ways to improve Wikipedia, nearly all easier than creating new articles, and many arguably more important. Check out what's happening at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing or other topical groups that interest you, or see Wikipedia:Task Center for ways to help while you wait. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce Thank you. My plan is to add to Wiki in other areas as well. Thanks for the links!

12:13:28, 20 March 2021 review of submission by Zapman987


Zapman987 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I recently submitted this. It was declined for "needing a source".

Its got multiple sources for each and every line. I dont understand why it was declined for this reason. Zapman987 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zapman987, The reviewer has been blocked indefinitely from editing. I have reverted their review, and accepted your draft. Thank you for bringing it here. The review looked problematic to me. Fiddle Faddle 13:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:14:49, 20 March 2021 review of draft by "Jhony777"


"Jhony777" (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my artist has verified Facebook page and verified YouTube official artist account how can i add it as a reference for the approval of my article

"Jhony777" I see your correct declaration on your user page. Wikipedia is a volunteer project with paid editors tolerated. As a volunteer I consider that an editor receiving payment for their edits needs to have the skill to perform their own research and to implement the outcome without external help. After all, you are receiving a reward from your edits. I wish you well. Fiddle Faddle 18:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:23:54, 20 March 2021 review of submission by StB

This draft was duly declined on 7 February. By now I have added sources for practically each of the statements, as requested, would like to seek advice what would need to be changed so that this article could be according to Wikipedia standards. (The more so because since then I came across offers that such assistance can be extended for a fee - and I think such offers are squarely against Wikipedia policy.) StB (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted - StB, assistance for a fee is deprecated, as is touting for business in that manner. Thank you for resisting. Most such offers make a draft worse, and reflect badly the editor accepting them Fiddle Faddle 17:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:18:53, 20 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by FullMan1913


I'm really bad at writing articles since I'm very new to creating wikipedia articles. I might need some support.


FullMan1913 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FullMan1913 Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state. Your draft is completely unsourced. As creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, you should learn more about the process by using the new user tutorial and reading Your First Article. You may as also wish to edit some existing articles first. Drafts are only deleted after six months of inactivity, so you have time. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:31:39, 20 March 2021 review of submission by Bosniantennis


Bosniantennis (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please review the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 21

01:51:33, 21 March 2021 review of submission by 47.153.219.191


We've added sources. 47.153.219.191 (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sources include at least one regional, statewide, national, or international source, or are all the sources local media, or media of limited interest and circulation? See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:51:17, 21 March 2021 review of draft by MMilanezi


Hello, the draft was declined once more, which I know is normal and part of the process to keep articles in wikipedia safe. I've followed the citation requirements but it seems like that is still the issue. I wonder if it would be possible to point specifically what remains to be cited, or which citations are being understood as insufficient.

Thanks for the help, Marcello

MMilanezi (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MMilanezi, I think two things are useful
  1. read WP:NACADEMIC and determine for yourself that he passes
  2. Ask Kashmorwiki about their review and their rationale
Having looked at a couple of the references I find the first two do not help your cause. The first does not appear to mention him, the second is not significant coverage.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Academic papers can be useful, but not always. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely
Academic Biographies are always difficult to write and to review Fiddle Faddle 12:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:26, 21 March 2021 review of draft by MR. CREATIVE JAIN


MR. CREATIVE JAIN (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Myself jainam Jain manager of JV super mega-market. Our company is not as big as other organisations but it's growing. we are having assets of more than 5 crore rupees. we didn't get any reference because we are not grown but we are growing. the article I had created is not for promotional purpose. i am new to wikipedia may be i don't know what is considers as promotional or neutral point of view . i request you to please review the article i had submitted and please let me know if i can make any changes to it.... MR. CREATIVE JAIN (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MR. CREATIVE JAIN On Wikipedia, promotion is not just selling something or soliciting customers. Merely telling about something is considered promotional here. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to state about (in this case) a business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. Wikipedia has no interest in what a business wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the business choose to say about it(so no press releases or announcements of routine business activities). If there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your business, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:32:42, 21 March 2021 review of submission by Shreyas8129s


Shreyas8129s (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shreyas8129s, Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further Fiddle Faddle 12:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shreyas8129s: If you do not understand why it was rejected, please see WP:NOTDIR. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:02:59, 21 March 2021 review of submission by Noreen Akbar

I am completely new to wiki pages and need a lots of help. kindly guide how can I change the title of a wiki page Noreen Akbar (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noreen Akbar, This draft has been rejected, thus changing the title is unimportant Fiddle Faddle 12:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably "changing the title of a wiki page" means getting rid of the "Draft:" prefix here, but that will probably not happen. @Noreen Akbar: Please see WP:NOTHOWTO. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:44:55, 21 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Eliciapin


Hi there! I have written and re-written this page, removing all discussion of products and services, as well as removing clients and other information. I modeled this almost exactly off of Vimeo’s page in structure and content, which is an existing, approved page. Can anyone help guide me in this area as to why it is not being approved? It’s extremely frustrating since nothing I’m saying isn’t fact, talking about the company structure, past initiatives, and its leadership.


Eliciapin (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eliciapin, no Declined please see my full commentary on the draft. We we require quality references. Interviews with the company personnel are pretty much useless in stabbing notability, nor are they any use in verifying anything other than simple facts. But the real estate reference???? Fiddle Faddle 19:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:19:08, 21 March 2021 review of submission by TomRoad-1

I am a SmartHome enthusiast trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage on the subject. As an expert in the field, I saw that List_of_home_automation_software is totally biased, incomplete and of mediocre quality. Any attempt to make it better (not only by me) have so far failed. I tried to comply to one of the reasons why my addition of a market leader was reverted (WP:WTAF#Red-linking_in_lists was reverted even though this is controversial and it would have made the list less biased) by writing an article about it. I followed Wikipedia guidelines to my best knowledge and improved it after I got some editor reviews. However, I have the impression that blindly following very strict rules without even trying to understand the specific case is more important than writing a useful article. I never received any indication why my article's quality is lower than similar ones (like OpenHAB or Home_Assistant). I cite several independent, reliable, secondary sources. As everybody else submitting a new article, I have already stated that I have no affiliation with the subject of the article. Nevertheless, the editor leaves a new section "potential conflict of interest" on my talk page. Where is WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:BOLD and WP:IAR? If there is an inadequate reference, I'd like to know which one (or even better, be bold and fix it).

I do not know how to address the issues mentioned by the editor because they are:

  • subjective: WP:BROCHURE. This is an opinion, not a fact. What I describe in the article, however, are facts.
  • incorrect: should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed: check the references, half of them are not created by the subject. Those that are could also just be deleted (but it would make the article less useful, because they link exactly to the place where an interested reader can get help)
  • non-specific: both previous comments don't specificly state what action would resolve the issue: which part seems WP:BROCHURE, what is a range of ... sources? (The article already includes a range of independent, reliable, published secondary sources.)

TomRoad-1 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


March 22

00:20:32, 22 March 2021 review of draft by Gprivitera


Gprivitera (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm trying to publish my draft, and it returns ever:

"This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Marco Camisani Calzolari, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one."

The last version is not as the first one, and i have edited and corrected my draft, as suggested from the admin after the first submission, but every resubmit is useless and admins consider the first draft, and not the last corrected one. Please help me. Thanks in advance— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gprivitera (talk • contribs)

Hello Gprivitera, both drafts are created by you. And both are about the same topic. We cannot have multiple articles on the same topics. I'd recommend you to merge User:Gprivitera/sandbox into Draft:Marco Camisani Calzolari. Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 04:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

00:24:25, 22 March 2021 review of submission by LittleBriarRoseTeam

I want to promote my game to more people who are interested as well as get feedback. Twitter would like me to have a authorized source so I can verify the game dev team account. I don't want to add spoilers on the page yet because the full demo isn't out. My request was also reject because I'm "too close to the content", but I hoped my description of how the game came to be was pretty neutral.

TL;DR: What do I need to add/change (besides a thorough description of the game and spelling/punctuation errors) to the draft in order to make it neutral and credible?

LittleBriarRoseTeam (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LittleBriarRoseTeam, welcome to the AfC help desk. Note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or the means of promotion. You seem to be too close to the subject and you might have WP:COI with it. Have a look WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV to learn more. Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 04:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LittleBriarRoseTeam Wikipedia has no interest in any requirements Twitter or other social media imposes on you to verify your accounts. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:56:19, 22 March 2021 review of draft by Deangelo Snutts


Wanting clarification why 3-4 published articles on a subject does not qualify it to have a wikipedia page? It is a phenomena that exists, is documented, and has sources to back up the claims in the article. Thank you.

Deangelo Snutts (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deangelo Snutts The draft is little more than a product advertisement. It looks like most of the sources do not mention the particular product described specifically, or only do so briefly. Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google The Holy Grail of Cum. There are dozens and dozens of internet forum threads on it on dozens of websites and several articles. It's a well-known thing in many communities. The primary sources provided are from online news and lifestyle outlets that cover lifestyle topics, and are used as sources elsewhere on this website. Do I really have to walk you through why saying 'it needs reliable sources' when that was already in the original decline reason is the pinnacle of tedium and timewasting? Next time can you actually go into the articles and state what is not reliable about them? I don't really want to have to tell you how to do your job. Next time an actual explanation beyond 'well it just seems like an ad' when it clearly isn't and there is literally nothing advertised, and then just reiterating the decline reason that was already given with no elaboration whatsoever would actually be much appreciated. Deangelo Snutts (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deangelo Snutts For follow up comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating new sections. I did elaborate on the reason. The sources you provided mention this product little, if at all. Wikipedia requires significant coverage of the subject itself by sources. Forum threads are not considered reliable sources. Advertising does not just mean soliciting customers or selling something on Wikipedia; merely telling about something is considered promotional here. The draft just tells about the product and what it does- that's not what Wikipedia is looking for. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, but I never used forum posts as sources. My point on forum posts was to show it is a widely known thing, and the sources themselves, which are reliable journalistic/online article sources back that up/

> The draft just tells about the product and what it does- that's not what Wikipedia is looking for.

No it doesn't. What product. There is one line saying that numerous companies have created varieties of the formula. That's literally it. There are probably hundreds of thousands of wikipedia articles on actual products. The draft does not tell about any product, it tells about a formula of ingredients used to change male physiology it never once mentions a product. Did you actually read the article I wrote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deangelo Snutts (talk • contribs) 02:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:04:47, 22 March 2021 review of submission by Adiepp


Contrary to common understanding, I want to show that the LCOE definition used by WIKIPEDIA is mistaken. I want to point out the source of the error and suggest the proper definition, using the mean value theorem for integrals. Adiepp (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adiepp, please edit Levelized cost of energy with correctly cited material. If you intend to make large changes please us the talk page there to seek consensus Fiddle Faddle 12:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:12, 22 March 2021 review of submission by VaJaMe

Hi, as the board of the World Federation of ADHD has summarized its strength and collected several new sources, we would like to submit the article again with different references. Please let me know how to proceed, many thanks! VaJaMe

VaJaMe (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VaJaMe, "we" concerned me, Please see WP:PAID.
This draft is a sycophantic alternate web page about the org. You need to take the following actions:
  1. Make any relevant declaration of WP:COI especially after reading about paid editing
  2. Find excellent references
  3. From those references exact the facts you wish to highlight
  4. Set those facts into a storyboard
  5. Write an entirely new, neutral, factual, tightly written draft contaomong only those facts and citations
  6. Submit that draft for review
The existing draft will not be considered further, It has been rejected Fiddle Faddle 12:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:43:33, 22 March 2021 review of draft by Petkraw


I read and understood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists

However, none of the articles in the category of genetics organizations seems to fulfill the notability criteria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Genetics_organizations

I, therefore, need guidance on how to reference significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.Petkraw (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petkraw (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petkraw, no one article sets a precedent for any other article.Thsi means that the others require improvement. Please plough your own correct furrow by providing excellence of referencing. WP:ACADEME may be of some use to you here.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
These references may include peer reviewed significant papers. Significant in this context means cited often in this arena. Ideally they shoudl not all be under the same authorship Fiddle Faddle 12:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input on this page. Finding "independent" references is difficult in such a situation - human genetic organizations, like the AGD, would probably only be referenced by other genetic-related bodies/orgs, which as I understand it, would then not be "independent"? The difficulty is compounded by the fact that the references also need to be "significant" peer-reviewed ones. This is easy for a scientific subject, much more difficult for an organization. Is there precedent or good examples in Wikipedia from other scientific organizations? Shahmoo (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahmoo, it may be the case that the association is one of those entities that is useful but is not notable in a Wikipedia sense Fiddle Faddle 17:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent thank you. I am new to this. Would "useful" not make the cut for a Wikipedia page then? Shahmoo (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:59:24, 22 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Sfwspc


I would like to clarify if I could not create a new Wiki article under new journal name? Do I have to put the new journal name under the wiki article of former name? Thank you.

Sfwspc (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sfwspc, Instead, please edit Journal of Computational Biophysics and Chemistry Fiddle Faddle 12:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:17:23, 22 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Maria Inês Figueira


I just wanted to know what is the update on this article. It has been resubmitted and is part of Woman artists project, but for weeks no reply regarding is acceptance or not. Kindly let me know, will be glad to provide any further info you require. Thank you!Maria Inês Figueira (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maria Inês Figueira. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for three weeks. There are 5,275 other drafts in the pool, the oldest of which has been waiting 4-5 months for a review. There are many ways you can help improve Wikipedia while you wait. See Wikipedia:Task Center if you are not sure where to start. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:25:41, 22 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ArthurRobertRobert


How is the article not neutral? I do refer to many published, independent sources in the article, actually. How, specifically, is it too much like an ad? The draft article contains factual information and points to neutral sources, like the Globe and Mail and IMDb.


ArthurRobertRobert (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is never a reliable source and www.frontrowinsurance.com clearly isn't independent. Do you have a conflict of interest by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:05:22, 22 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SeanRMull


I am wondering what it will take to get this page published? I have seen pages with similar content matter get published and I feel as if it offered the same or less infomration that is being offered on this page. I assure you I am not trying to be difficult. I am trying to get a better understanding of how I can contribute more to wikipedia. I have read the suggested artciles about page creation as well. Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! SeanRMull (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SeanRMull (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE. The existence of other poorly articles does not mean we need more. We need less actually. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:30, 22 March 2021 review of submission by TonciJajic

The article was completely redone, would like a review if it fits the posting policy now. TonciJajic (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Article had been rejected 2 years ago, missing AfC Submut now, new Editor=COI. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Charin Mendis at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charin_Mendes

Dear all, I have been working very hard on improving my article Charin Mendes and I followed good feedback from many moderators to improve the article. It was on the live pages for some time and I also contested the deletion and it was approved. The advertisement flag was taken off by one moderator as well once I made improvements to making the article to be more neutral sounding. However, now once again it has been sent to the drat pages by another moderator and my review has been declined and flagged. Can someone please help me understand what's wrong. I am a Sri Lankan citizen who wants to help the Sri Lankan music community and I believe this artist has a notable body of work, both in his academic musical achievements and the milestones he has reached as a Sri Lankan musician in the international market. Please help me. Appreciate the help. Thank you!--Tashiya Jayatilaka (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first cleanup tag says, "This article reads like a press release or a news article and is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism". Let's examine the first paragraph.
  • "He began gaining attention in the music scene in 2016 after releasing his cover of Coldplay’s “Clocks”." For this you cite an interview in which he announces the upcoming release. The source cannot possibly demonstrate that he "began gaining attention" after the release, so don't cite it for this statement. It is a primary source in which the musician talks about themselves and promotes their work, so it does nothing to help establish notability. Is the statement supported by anything in the body? You write that the cover made it onto two iTunes charts. Wikipedia:Record charts says that charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Writing about where the cover placed on a bad chart, such as iTunes, is promotional, and should be removed. After that, the body lists nine more releases, but there's nothing - no reviews, charting, sales, touring, awards, prizes, rotations, etc. - to support the "gaining attention in 2016" claim.
  • "He is a voting member of the ‘Songwriters Hall of Fame’ (New York)." For this you cite two reprints of a press release from 5TRAWBERIFIELD5, a creative collective founded by Mendis. Anyone who is a music industry professional and pays $50 can be a voting member, it's no big deal. You make him look like a chump for gushing over it, although more likely he was taking the newspapers and their readers for chumps by doing so. Nonsense like this doesn't belong in a Wikipedia biography.
Skimming the rest of the draft, there are more interviews, such as the one in Cosmopolitan Sri Lanka, and more press releases, such as the one reprinted by NewsWire and The Morning Leader, none of which do anything to establish notability, and all of which contribute to the promotional tone. There's more nonsense around the Grammys. Being invited to them is not the same as being nominated for one, or even performing at them. Being invited to the ceremony is insignificant enough that no reliable source tracks the nationalities of invitees. The draft shouldn't mention the Grammys. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


March 23

01:16:04, 23 March 2021 review of submission by Drkahless


Hi, ok. So this is confusing for a newbie. We received an email tonight from someone at "Wikipedia Writing" claiming the page in question was being declined as it was written by the person it was about. It was not. However it looks like they are consultants looking to make a fast buck or something and so I am trying to write you. I am writing this evening with regards to a Wikipedia page I was the lead creator on. The page was created for Professor George Bullerjahn. Professor Bullerjahn is the current director of the Great Lakes Center for Fresh Waters and Human Health – but of course I guess you know this as you have apparently reviewed this page.

Unfortunately you made an error if you declined the page because you thought it was written but the subject. Professor Bullerjahn did not create this page and had no knowledge of its creation while we were doing it (Professor Bullerjahn is a somewhat humble academic). A number of research scientists, led by myself and Professor R Michael McKay (the Director of the Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research at the University of Windsor) are the authors. We of course have had feedback from multiple academics around the world (including in Russia, Israel and across the United States). To this end this is definitely a community driven effort and not one created by the subject of the page. It was entered by me since, because most of us are Wikipedia novices, we worked using word documents then I sorted out how to post stuff.

To this end your decision on declining the page seems incorrect and I assume it can be restored. Of course if there are other issues I would love to try and work on them too. Just so you know the Nov 2020 date corresponds with an online retirement party that 80 of us threw for Professor Bullerjahn on his move to Professor Emeritus. We had in fact been gathering the data and information since August. But on that week in Nov we posted the draft for all the contributors to see it was real (and to tell Professor Bullerjahn).

anyways, please let me know if there is a way to correct this (and to be honest I am not even sure I am coding this correctly in this box) sww


Drkahless (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That email is almost certainly a scam, so ignore it. Unfortunately, short of you disabling email, there's no way for us to prevent mercenary editors from trolling AfC in search of new potential marks to rip off. As to the draft itself, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason whatsoever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it. Anything less is grounds for a summary decline, and is in fact why it was declined. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:40:55, 23 March 2021 review of submission by 180.246.37.36


180.246.37.36 (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:15:07, 23 March 2021 review of submission by StoshK21

The Donna Campana Drake page was declined due to not being able to verify the info, even though I included bulleted reference list with sites, and in the correct format. Along with info brought directly from the source. It also mentions there were corrections made, I would like to know what those corrections were. StoshK21 (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StoshK21, welcome to the AfC help desk. I had a look at your draft. The references are not placed at the proper places. Have a look at WP:REFB, WP:IC, WP:CITE and WP:YFA.--Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 04:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:24:18, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Chasity Ent


Chasity Ent (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chasity Ent, you didn't asked a question. But I'd recommend you to follow the comment by reviewer and read WP:IC, WP:REFB and WP:CITE.--Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 04:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:03:42, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Shah Kinchitkumar Arya


Shah Kinchitkumar Arya (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shah Kinchitkumar Arya: I am afraid that drafts only containing an infobox are not siutable for Wikipedia. The absolute miminum would be a WP:STUB that is verifyable and shows how this subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of the term "notability". If this is an article about yourself, please also have a look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and, judging by the birth date, WP:Guidance for younger editors. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


07:24:42, 23 March 2021 review of draft by WikiIndustrialComplex

I need another admin to inspect this article, despite making the appropriate changes, User:Dan arndt has been completely unhelpful at best and downright obstructionist. He appears largely ignorant of how these articles usually appear, handwaving and dismissing me concern as "other stuff exists." I believe it would be best for all parties involved and for the article itself if another admin besides User:Dan arndt reviewed it.

WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiIndustrialComplex Anyone may review article drafts, not just admins. The advice you were given is correct. If other articles are the same way, perhaps those articles should be treated similarly to your draft. If you have a consensus that says otherwise, please offer evidence of it. I'd suggest removing your comments from the draft itself since they technically are part of the draft at the moment(and also formatted as section headers). You may respond to the comments on the draft talk page- but please do so without making personal attacks and name calling. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To provide a similar example, at one point the mere existence of a school or university was enough to merit it an article, but that is no longer the case. Standards can change over time. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of an article for the A&B embassy is causing major confusion, particularly on Google, because it doesn't have an article. It moved out of a space it shared with 4 other nations, but is not there any more. As such, many things on both Wikipedia and Google default to using this older address. I just thought I was being helpful, I would have never put this much effort in the article if I thought the process would be this difficult. Please show some mercy, I just want the article to be put out there so that I can it be further improved upon, I will even add coordinates and literally drive into DC (I live nearby) to take a picture of the NEW embassy just to make the article that much better. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should also say that I have never encountered an editor as obstructionist as User:Dan arndt, and the fact that I have made recommended changes and continue to be rejected, when all he has demonstrated in terms of knowledge of this type of article is nothing about absolute ignorance. Embassies in DC are considered notable enough because of the geopolitcal prominence of the US and the importance of the foreign countries' embassies in DC as part of broader global diplomacy. This is the only embassy article to get this kind of treatment, my question is why? I really hope it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Antigua and Barbuda is vast majority Black. Regardless, it felt like User:Dan arndt's building background was preventing a diplomacy/foreign relations perspective to break through, he was only responding literally to the embassy as an actual structure. But an embassy is more than that, isn't it...? I really want to give users the benefit of the doubt, but User:Dan arndt has never given that to me. As such, I believe he should be held accountable for this rampant obstructionism. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WikiIndustrialComplex You will need to contact Google for any issues involving Google; there should be a feedback or contact link in the Knowledge Panel(which is what I assume you are referencing). Dan ardnt is probably evaluating it as a structure since the draft does little more than tell of the existence of the embassy. Articles like Embassy of Russia in Washington, D.C. do a little more than that. Dan arndt might respond better if you stopped calling him a tyrant and ignorant and "the worst kind of Wikipedia editor" and saying he's racist. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand WikiIndustrialComplex's frustrations. I have attempted to explain myself on his talkpage. The issue is that embassies are not inherently or automatically notable - there are numerous AfD on embassies that justify my comments (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Santiago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the State of Palestine in Sri Lanka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Sweden, Tirana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Germany in Palestine). If however the user is arguing that the function of the embassy is notable then that information should be contained within an article on the international relations between the two countries in question not on the embassy page. Dan arndt (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dan arndt They decided to go and create the article anyway. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot that's a shame - have lodged an AfD so that it can be discussed and he can argue why it is notable. Dan arndt (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:28:29, 23 March 2021 review of submission by VaJaMe


VaJaMe (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the advice, Fiddle Faddle. Of course, the text will be adjusted and new references added. They are already numerous. I am wondering why other societies, federations and associations such as the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society or the International AIDS Society are not forced to do so. The MDS list for example ONLY their association website as source, so - where is the difference? Btw, I am not paid by the World Federation of ADHD, I am paid by the Verein zur Durchführung Neurowissenschaftlicher Tagungen e. V. VaJaMe

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1013759356"